Closing Your CX Gap with Loyalty
Kyros just published a loyalty ROI guide that says some uncomfortable things about how most programs get measured. We handed it to Sara Galloway, Annex Cloud’s Head of Strategy and Accounts and asked her to react. Sara has over 15 years of loyalty expertise – designing and running programs on behalf of leading brands across retail, hospitality, CPG, automotive and B2B. Here’s what she had to say.
When a loyalty program wants to prove its value, the first chart it usually pulls is predictable: members spend more than non-members. The problem is that your best customers were always going to enroll, which means the member group was likely higher-spending before loyalty influenced anything. So the gap may look like incremental value, but much of it may simply reflect who signed up. And finance teams are increasingly seeing through that.
“Clients lean on this comparison because it’s fast and easy to explain. The issue is it gets harder to defend as the program matures. A brand’s best customers are naturally more likely to enroll, so what looks like loyalty impact is often a mix of true incrementality and self-selection.”
-Sara Galloway, Head of Strategy and Accounts
What this means for you: starting there is fine. Staying there is the problem.
Loyalty value shows up slowly. Over a short window, the program looks like a cost, because you’re paying out rewards before the retention and repeat-purchase effects have time to compound. That’s why Kyros puts credible ROI proof at 24 months or more. Unfortunately, most programs don’t have 24 months of executive patience. So what do the best teams do?
“They separate early signal from full payback proof. Redemption basket lift, return rate after redemption, repeat purchase behavior, and movement into higher-value segments tell the story that the program is creating momentum, even before it’s a full read on incrementality.”
Use your 6- and 12-month indicators to build confidence. Just don’t overstate them. Early momentum is a different claim than proven ROI, and finance knows the difference.
Here’s one that trips up smart teams. When redemption drops, the reward bill drops with it, so the metric gets reported up the chain as cost savings. Kyros flags the trap: that same falling number can mean members are losing interest and quietly disengaging. Same data point, opposite conclusions. Sara asks one question before she lets anyone call it a win.
“Is redemption lower because the program is more efficient, or because members are less motivated to engage?”
If you’re shifting from broad discounting to targeted, margin-conscious offers and revenue is holding, that’s healthy. If redemption is falling among active members, the rewards probably aren’t compelling or the value isn’t clear. One number, two opposite stories.
We asked Sara which claim she sees most often that wouldn’t hold up under that scrutiny. In addition to the member vs. non-member challenge, Sara added another claim:
“The second weak claim is just as common: ‘the program generated X in loyalty revenue.’ But revenue tracked through loyalty is not the same as revenue created by loyalty. A member using an ID, earning points, or redeeming a reward does not automatically mean the program caused that purchase. Without a clear incrementality view, ‘loyalty revenue’ is often just attributed revenue with a more impressive label.”
A CFO will want to know: did loyalty lift frequency, raise AOV, reduce churn, or reactivate customers who would have lapsed? Did the incremental margin cover the cost of points, technology, and liability?
The next era of loyalty is not about bigger claims. It is about better proof. Brands that can measure what loyalty actually changes will be the ones that earn more confidence from finance, receive more investment from the business, and gain more meaningful engagement from customers.
The full Kyros Loyalty ROI Guide goes deeper on every one of these. Read it here, and watch for our upcoming conversation with Kyros on what loyalty measurement looks like when it’s done right.